Jhala Nath Khanal’s resignation as Prime Minister on August 14 signals the return of Nepal to its familiar terrain -political and constitutional turmoil. He formed his government in April with the backing of the Maoists, who have the largest parliamentary bloc. Once the Maoists discarded him, he was forced to quit. There is no alternative as yet in sight with the Maoists unwilling to display flexibility. Failure to meet the August 31 deadline to adopt the new statute will defeat the very scheme of things that have been ushered in 2006, when King Gyanendra was forced to step down in the face of mass protests.
The concept of rotational prime minister, though sounds funny at the outset, may offer a way out but who would get the honours first is a thorny question on which agreement remains elusive. The Maoists choice for the top post is their vice chairman, Baburam Bhattarai, known for his pro-business credentials. The NC has proposed Bahadur Deuba, who was prime minister thrice under the King between 1995 and 2005.
The NC stand is that there should not be a Maoist prime minister until the thorny issue of armed Maoist cadres ( the nearly 20,000 –member strong People’s Liberation Army, PLA), who are presently confined to cantonments is resolved. This is an idea that doesn’t appeal to the Maoists. In fact, they would be only too happy to call for a fresh election, hoping to consolidate their parliamentary majority with a fresh mandate.
The 2008 election threw up a split verdict, though the Maoists had emerged as the single largest bloc in the interim parliament and that vantage position had catapulted their leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal into the prime ministerial chair. Since then much water has flown into the Kosi; the Maoists are not in pink of political health. The former rebels are vertically divided and the unity that has been their hallmark is now a thing of the past. Failure to integrate the former armed Maoist cadres into the police or army has given them negative dividends.
Under the peace deal the Maoists had signed in December 2006 with Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML the Maoist fighters were disarmed and have been confined to specially set up cantonments. India facilitated the deal and UN and the US backed the initiative. Though various permutations and combinations have been suggested, and some were seriously pursued, the integration logjam is far from resolved. It has contributed no less to the change of governments in quick succession as the statute drafting became a hostage to the power games. The only redeeming feature of the story far has been periodical lease of life to the Interim Parliament. Thus in mid-2009, when Pushpa Kamal Dahal resigned as Prime Minister, the two-year deadline to write the constitution was extended for one year. Another three months extension was agreed to in May this year
Will Nepal’s interim Parliament get yet another extension? At least theoretically, it is difficult to put a bet on fresh extension. It is because the Supreme Court had ruled early this year that the decision to extend the term of the Constituent Assembly beyond the six months allowed by the interim constitution was itself unconstitutional. This ruling came days before political parties agreed on three month’ extension in May.
Put bluntly, leaders of parties in Parliament simply turned a blind eye to the apex court ruling and ‘rewarded’ themselves. History may repeat once again. After all, politics is the art of the possible. This decision making may turn out to be far easier than reconciling the differences between the Maoists and other mainline parties on the basic features of the new Nepali statute. Maoists stand favours executive president and parliament based on proportional representation. On the other hand, the oldest party, NC and its old time ally, UML are committed to parliamentary supremacy with the prime minister as the head of the government.
The political slugfest is taking place under a looming Chinese shadow. Zhou Yongkang undertook on Tuesday Aug 16 a visit to Kathmandu as a special envoy of Chinese President Hu Jintao at the head of a jumbo (60-member) delegation, prompting the headline ‘China rushes in where India fears to tread in Nepal’. A senior member of the Standing Committee of the politburo of the Communist Party of China, Zhou who was accompanied by three ministers and four assistant ministers, signed four pacts – a $50 million economic and technical cooperation, an agreement on providing a $24 million soft loan for a hydropower transmission line project, a $2.5 million security project meant to enhance the capacities of Nepal Police, and a preliminary agreement to provide other concessional loans. In a statement issued through his foreign affairs advisor Milan Tuladhar, the outgoing premier Jhala Nath Khanal said the Zhou visit made at such a critical juncture of the transition period in Nepal, showed Beijing’s "sincere spirit of friendship" towards Nepal
This display of Chinese bonhomie is in sharp contrast to India’s reluctance to make any diplomatic forays into Nepal at the present juncture. New Delhi’s stand is that as a friend and neighbour, India wishes national reconciliation in Nepal but will not take direct part in the process. It is for the local players to take their own judicious decision and move ahead. More over India is always wary of sending envoys during the tenure of a caretaker government or signing deals with it. This is the reason why no senior Indian official went to Kathmandu since the external affairs minister SM Krishna made a 3-day visit to Nepal in April. Though Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was to have paid a visit since then, it was put off at the last minute. Neither has New Delhi pushed Nepal to ink any of the pending bilateral pacts, like a revised extradition treaty.
-m. rama rao
